If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
dr.benway wrote:
> For cabout 30 years, society has been idiot proofing everything. Not your typing, apparently... John -- To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote: > >>Or do you think stupidity began in 1926 with the first television >>broadcasts? > > > Oh, hell; as long as we're all being petty sniping *******s ... it was > 1928. Nope. 1926. John -- To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> > I wouldn't be in favor of banning irresponsible car commercials. I'm > opposed to censorship. I think the automakers should practice some > self-restraint, however. There *ought* to be some form of code of practice for advertisers, with sanctions for breaching it. In the UK adverts are expected to be "legal, decent, honest, and truthful" (or something to similar effect). I suspect that "decent" is treated with some flexibility, and that advertisers in, say, "top shelf" magazines can get away with rather more than folk whose adverts are shown during children's TV programmes. Presumably the "legal, decent, honest, and truthful" bit is a sloganised summary of some rather more detailed guidelines, and ISTM that the full guidelines should ban anything which is likely to be seen by any significant section of the audience as promoting unsafe or illegal practices. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:38:42 GMT, The Lindbergh Baby > > wrote: > > >Now, talk about *old* VW commercials, one of the classics, for the > >original bug, goes back to the 1960s: we see a neighborhood covered with > >deep snow in the early morning light. It's quiet; nothing is moving. > >Then, in the distance, one car, a VW Beetle, getting closer and closer, > >then passing us, driving easily through the snow. Announcer: "Ever > >wonder how the snow plow driver gets to work?" > > How about the (even older) one where the VW bug drives into a pond and > floats across, while the announcer describes how the car's body seams > are built to such high tolerances that the car is practically > watertight? They did a version of that ad in a humor magazine. Photo of a VW bug floating in a river with the caption, 'If Ted Kennedy drove a VW, he'd be president today'. -- Paul Hovnanian ------------------------------------------------------------------ 668: The Neighbor of the Beast |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Scott
The fact that you look at someone who is ahead of you and slowing you down as "oppressing your freedom" is the big problem here. The idea that you can't see any alternative to this situation except to become aggressive is the problem. The idea you really think life is so short that you have to reclaim your time as a matter of defense is the problem. That time thing is just a silly excuse. It is apparent that you gauge your self-worth so much by driving that you feel threatened when you think someone is getting one up on you. You are using the perception of power that you get from an automobile as a way of determining your place in the pack. That is very dangerous, and you need to think about it. There is nothing wrong with the idea, when someone is blocking you, to take a deep breath, back off and wait until the person pulls over or whatever. But I suspect that you would not be emotionally capable of doing that. I suspect you'd become enraged, your heart would race, your palms would become sweaty and you would feel that sense threat to your manhood. I can imagine you sitting there with your defensive fight-or-flight mechanism triggering merely because someone is in you way. Man, your view of the world is just scary and immature. I mean do you really think that I'm going to be impressed with this idea of your car going by in a streak of yellow? Do you really think I'm so insecure that I'm going to be offended because you refer to my 85 horsepower engine? I'm old enough and mature enough to be neither impressed nor offended. I don't even know what horsepower my engine is. Nor do I care. I do not tie my sense of worth to the size of my car's engine or to how fast and aggressively I can drive. I DO tie my self worth to how I can get my emotions under control and back down when that would be the safe thing to do. I'm certainly not going to let my concern about how short life is invite a road rage situation. I suspect you're either in your twenties or a really immature male. I think you're not only a bad driver, but the worst possible kind of driver there is. I MUCH rather share a road with a drunk driver than with you because I never know what a driver like you will do when he feels threatened and decides, as you put it, to "defend" himself. At least I can avoid a drunk. I really hope that I never have to share the road with you .. at least no until you mature a lot. -- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Jim
Please don't compare breaking speed laws to civil disobedience. An appropriate act of civil disobedience occurs when a group of people comes across an injustice so overwhelming that it is worth risking the foundation of our free society by disobeying the rule of law. Civil disobedience is not an action to be taken lightly. One might argue that it is appropriate to take such a risk in fighting a law that violates a fundamental freedom, such as those that discriminate against people based on color. But it is demeaning to those who have sacrificed themselves to liberate black people from the repression of racists or to the people of India to free themselves from British rule to compare their struggle with people who break the law so they can drive fast. In fact, this nation's freedom fighters were in fact cognizant of the rule of law. Look at Martin Luther King Jr. who turned the marchers around simply so that they would not be seen as violating a court order. People who engage in civil disobedience are trying to make a statement to dramatize their plight. Speeders aren't doing that. In fact, with their radar detectors and their penchant for slowing down when they see the police, speeders are doing the act opposite. They aren't out there protesting like the civil rights leaders or willingly going to jail in great number to dramatize the great injustice. I never even see any attempt on this group to get people into petitioning the government. What you call civil disobedience is simply people breaking the law simply because they don't like it and trying to get away with it whenever possible. That's spineless and an affront to people who believe in basic freedoms, which are guaranteed, more than anything else, by the rule of law. Breaking the speed limit is nothing like the bravely and selflessness of the people who have risked everything by engaging is real acts of civil disobedience. -- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup. "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message .. . > "Anthony Giorgianni" > > wrote in : > > > Let me clarify > > > > I think Scott should obey speed limits just like everyone else (should > > obey speed limits). Of course, if anyone thinks it's okay for me to > > disobey any law I don't like, maybe we can talk. > > It's called "civil disobedience". > That's how the 55 MPH NMSL was finally discarded. > Massive disobedience of it. > > > > >But that's really a > > topic for another thread. > > > > > > -- > Jim Yanik > jyanik > at > kua.net |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> Please don't compare breaking speed laws to civil disobedience. An > appropriate act of civil disobedience occurs when a group of people comes > across an injustice so overwhelming that it is worth risking the foundation > of our free society by disobeying the rule of law. Driving over the posted limit is in no way "risking the foundation of our free society." > I never even see any attempt on > this group to get people into petitioning the government. There's the NMA. Of course, there are people who are of the opinion that fighting a speeding ticket in court is a waste of the court's time. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message ... > Anthony Giorgianni wrote: >> > Driving over the posted limit is in no way "risking the foundation of > our free society." Maybe it doesn't risk the foundation of society. But when you break the speed limit, you're sending a message that law doesn't matter, that it's okay for people to disobey a law simply because they don't agree with it. If that's your position, then don't complain if a cop simply decides that he doesn't have to observe your rights and can take you away in the middle of the night simply because he wants to. If you feel it's okay to disobey the speed limit, don't complain if the government throws you in jail for posting your opinions here. So many people have died to uphold the rule of the law in this country. Willingly disobeying the law without any sense of the civil implications I think is disrepecting the society in which you live and that protects you. The law is the most important thing we have. But it works only because we are as willing to be contrained by it as protected by it. It makes for a crummy society is the people say, "Well, it's okay for me to violate any law I don't like because I'm willing to pay the penalty." If we don't like the law, then we should try to change it. If we think a law is illegal, we should challenge it. (By the way, fighting a speeding ticket is not the same as challenging the law.) And if you do try to change or challenge the law and are unsuccessful, that's just too bad. That's the price you pay for living in a free society, as contradictory as that may sound. In only the most extreme cases should techniques like civil disobedience be used. And as I said, pushing your foot down on the accelerator when a cop isn't looking is hardly civil disobedience. It's just law breaking, and it disrepects the people who take seriously their civil obligations. -- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup. > > I never even see any attempt on > > this group to get people into petitioning the government. > > There's the NMA. Of course, there are people who are of the opinion > that fighting a speeding ticket in court is a waste of the court's time. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dumb Question.... | cassie | Mazda | 5 | February 5th 05 02:43 PM |
Dodge truck commercials... | N8N | Driving | 3 | January 25th 05 02:29 AM |
Fat, Dumb Trucker Makes Fun of Californians | Johnny Lately | Driving | 18 | January 6th 05 06:05 PM |
Dumb accident with '86 TQ, question about bent frame | cp | Audi | 10 | December 22nd 04 09:44 PM |
A dumb question: Smaller offset wheels vs lowering | Stu | General | 5 | April 1st 04 03:19 PM |